[TLS] PR# CertificateRequest extensions

2016-11-29 Thread Eric Rescorla
As discussed in issue #760 and Seoul, I've prepared a PR that moves most all of CertificateRequest into extensions: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/791 This got a little more complicated than I anticipated because I had to actually define a certificate_authorities extension and I

Re: [TLS] Maximum Fragment Length negotiation

2016-11-29 Thread Martin Thomson
On 30 November 2016 at 05:54, Thomas Pornin wrote: > Any comments? I'm ambivalent on this generally: though I think that the general notion is OK, I'm not sure about the details. In particular, you need to be clearer in your motivations: the point is to ensure that little

Re: [TLS] Maximum Fragment Length negotiation

2016-11-29 Thread Thomas Pornin
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:10:00PM +, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB) wrote: > I like your proposal, but I'm not convinced that overloading the > semantics of an already existing extension when used in combination > with a specific version of the protocol is necessarily the best > strategy.

Re: [TLS] Certificate compression (a la QUIC) for TLS 1.3

2016-11-29 Thread Thomas Pornin
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:05:21PM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > Well, PKIX/X.509 parsing seems to be order of magnitude more complex > than compression :) I have implemented both at times, so I can confirm that X.509 parsing is a bit more complex than decompression (with Deflate). The

Re: [TLS] Certificate compression (a la QUIC) for TLS 1.3

2016-11-29 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 13:56 +0100, Hubert Kario wrote: > > Given that certificates usually take up most of the bytes exchanged > > during a > > full handshake it seems this could be useful, but I don't know if > > in > > practice the benefits are worth the added complexity. Thoughts? > >

Re: [TLS] Certificate compression (a la QUIC) for TLS 1.3

2016-11-29 Thread Hubert Kario
On Sunday, 27 November 2016 01:54:37 CET Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > Hello, > > not sure if this has been discussed before (apologies if it has). > > QUIC mandates that certificate chains be gzip compressed in order to reduce > the amount of bytes transmitted during full handshake. > > The QUIC